Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. rand0m

    rand0m Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    2
    What happen re the deal for 3 ships at the price of 2 for the Aegir/BMT?
     
  2. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    NSW
    Unless they expand Techport building a home grown oiler is out of the question. From memory the DWP stated that when Choules was due to pay off we could in theory get a third oiler or another logistical ship, pure speculation on my part but they my combine the two like a Karel Doorman JSS type support ship, but that's a long way off.
     
  3. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,648
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Australia
    Err ..... We are talking about a civilian vessel where there is no intention to 'update' it to a warship by anybody currently connected with it. The vessel is still in design build phase and is being built as a civilian vessel so the whole idea is moot and any connection to previous defence procurements is illogical.
     
  4. Alf662

    Alf662 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    The Karel Doorman is a big ship and has a similar displacement to the LHD's, so any upgrade of Techport would allow future replacement of any current RAN vessels.

    Karel Doorman has a respectable replenishment capability (7,700 cubic metres of fuel and 1,000 cubic metres of JP5) and has a hangar for 6 NH90's. It's biggest draw back is that it lacks a well dock which means it cannot carry an LCM1e but it can carry smaller water craft. Any transfers by an LCU are done via a steel beach.

    Any type of JSS is going to involve capability trade off's. Time will tell if the Navy is prepared to forego a well dock and all of the capabilities it brings with it.

    Details on the Karel doorman can be found here: Joint Support Ship for multi mission naval support it also has a link to PDF data sheet which has more information.
     
  5. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    It's not a purely RAN matter. Choules performs a role which includes a formidable
    Troop carrying capacity which fits the ADFs ARG CONOPS.
    Her replacement will have the capability to fit these CONOPS and the JSS is not that platform, it doesn't have the same lift and deliver role.

    The matter of a third resupply vessel is separate and maybe the JSS could be considered and that would effectively boost the ADFs amphibious capability by providing added aviation assets with the resupply role.
     
  6. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    NSW
    If we want to sustain the capabilty long term it would make sence to add another 2x Canberra class with perhaps 2-3 Endurance class LPD to keep it scaleable, with Choules being replaced with JSS keeping tactical and stratigic shipping seperate from the ARG.

    I can't see either party increasing our lift capabilty y more than 100%
     
  7. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,407
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Sydney
    I would say what ever we get would have to at least match Choules as a minimum base line for amphibious capability. Even Choules will be tight. I would say its replacement would have to be greater in every way than Choules. More than 1000 lane metres, more than 400 troops (700 Surge).

    Looking at that leaves only a handful of LSD/LPD and LHD's. If you want to throw AOR capability on top of that there are very limited numbers of ships that can do that.

    Im not sure JSS is the ultimate answer. Not unless the JSS is more than 30,000t.
     
  8. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,978
    Likes Received:
    90
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Karel Doorman is 28000 tons, 2000 lane metres. She has much, much greater replenishment at sea capacity than the Bay class. But not the passenger space. She's not meant for that.
     
  9. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Let's be realistic, if we want something like the Bay class in capability such as the air and naval deployment capabilities with the ability to surge forces up to 700 along with some form of replenishment capability then that ship quite simply does not exist anywhere and will have to be designed specifically for us (Unless we get some other nations interested) rather then any MOTS option.

    Quite frankly such a ship could easily end up larger then the LHD's.
     
  10. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Absolutely, and that's the point. She is a fantastic capability but her lack of a proper dock for unloading heavy equipment limits her utility in some circumstances.
     
  11. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,978
    Likes Received:
    90
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Yes, & vonnoobie's right that a ship with Karel Doorman's capacity plus a dock & passenger space doesn't exist. I think there's a reason for that. I don't see any navy wanting all those things in one big ship.
     
  12. Goknub

    Goknub Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Aus
    This is were something like the Point-class RORO is an option I would like to see. It has the capacity to move large quantities of gear and is lower cost than most MOTS options.
    I would like to see a pair to maintain one on readiness. The LHD can focus on the initial entry and the RORO can bring the heavy logistics and additional follow-on forces. A decent LCH would help alleviate the lack of well dock.
     
  13. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,978
    Likes Received:
    90
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Flensburger will happily build you an updated one (they kept the plans), & the last I heard Longstone is still out there, unmodified & doing charters (Beachy Head was modified for the Danish firm which bought it, but I don't know how extensively).

    Stick some Mexeflotes aboard & you can unload to a beach.
     
  14. Jezza

    Jezza Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Perth
    Something like the 30,000-ton displacement M/V Cragside,
    In November, Military Sealift Command—America’s quasi-civilian fleet of more than 100 specialized but lightly armed vessels—awarded an initial $73-million contract to shipping giant Maersk to convert one of its cargo ships to a so-called “Maritime Support Vessel” standard.
     
  15. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Melbourne
    People have actually over thought the issue, There was never a mention of a ship having both capabilities (looks fondly at the Karel Doorman) but a matter of acquiring one or the other though I'm sure there is plenty of argument to acquire both.

    The Karel Doorman while being a wonderful ship and quite possibly able to be modified sacrificing the large amount of lane meters for extra troop capacity (From memory the Choules is 1,150 lane meter's to the Doormans 2,000) but that still does't solve the issue of no well deck which can be a major negative both in the armed conflict and humanitarian situations, In one AA could make it all but useless while in the other damaged port facilities would prevent the ship from docking requiring asset's to be beached in via landing craft of some form (LCM-1E's or mexefloats).

    In regards to a replacement of a ship similar to Choules then based on vessel's that will be build around that time frame my money would be on the San Antonio class which would still be able to get some construction support as the class will form the basis of the LX(R) that will be in production around that time frame. Other options might come up but for the time being everything else will be long out of production and far more out dated but with a decade until then nothing is a certainty.

    For the AOR, Seeing as they mention that they want a high capacity ship I read that as being more capable then what we will acquire. Anything the size of the Tide class and up in my mind is most likely.

    ---------------

    Quick note: Reading the DWP I find the wording some what vague as there are mentions of replacing the Choules but also mention of acquiring a logistics support ship in addition. It is also in my mind that we may keep the Choules along with the possible logistics support ship as the Choules is still quite young and will still have a decade or more of life when the decision comes up in the future.
     
  16. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,809
    Likes Received:
    346
    A thought crosses my mind that a logistics ship need not be either an AOR or an LPD and could be something completely different that effectively complements existing and future capabilities. A T-AKE for instance could complement or supplement the AORs supporting the RAN and allies at sea, as well as being more suitable to provide sustainment for a deployed ARG than an AOR would be. Another outside the square option could be a Montford Point Class T-ESD (Expeditionary Transfer Dock) or T-ESB (Expeditionary Support Base) supporting a number of EPF (Expeditionary Fast Transport), previously MLP, AFSB and JHSV respectively. If the threat justifies it a new, highly survivable San Antonio type LPD could even be an option.

    It will come down to the strategic situation at the time as to how the requirements are formulated.
     
  17. rand0m

    rand0m Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm still all for at least a handful of those Damen LST's they have on paper, surely some jobs don't require an LHD or Choules...
     
  18. gf0012-aust

    gf0012-aust Grumpy Old Man Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    18,005
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Australia
    its about force structure and a coherent balance

    you don't buy a platform for every contingency requirement - even the US doesn't do that

    your force structure is based on the risk assessments of where and when you are likely to have to fight, support like minded partners and how you manage your HADR events.

    we can't afford to go and buy a niche capability which may have infrequent use and which will take money from platform purchases and overall force sustainment - especially when the services themselves are responsible for defining and developing a force that fits not only service reqs, but joint requirements.

    for the last numbers of years we only get replacement platforms if the services can demonstrate the efficiency and trade it off against the efficiencies that selection will bring to the table.

    ie phat ships replaced B1 and B2 after it was determined that East Timor was a logistics cluster. the lessons learnt to select those vessels was about offloading issues, vessel to vessel transfer, bunkerage on and off ship etc...

    C17's were selected as they could show clear efficiencies in replacing the C130's on a load for load basis, on a sustainment benefit and that they met future requirements for HADR assistance. (eg they can carry a self contained surgical/medical container to a loc whereas C130's can't and the only way to get similar capability by air was through a crippling lease of fat antanovs

    choules fulfills a number of capabilities that is unique to it and would not be realised through an LST acquisition, especially when that role can be picked up by other assets such as phat ships (despite the hysteria about the tanks being too heavy, that is based on a non warlike loadout where safety margins under WHS have to be factored in. On top of which those tanks aren't loaded already "assisted up" so weight variations are minimal)
     
  19. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Melbourne
    At the moment I'm basing it off of being an AOR or LPD as the wording does indicate either an AOR or a logistics support ship similar to the HMAS Choules. That said we still have a good decade before we are likely to really start looking at options which I believe was in part set so far out to allow us to get a better idea of what we will actually need, Rather then buying something now and being stuck with the choice they are allowing time for the force structure we have planned to get entranched and allow a more detailed assesment of what is actually required be it extra amphibious capability, a larger AOR to support a possible semi permanent task force based around one of the LHD's or as you mentioned any number of other ships that could provide valuable logistics support or niche capability. Time will tell.
     
  20. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    NSW
    Dont take this the wrong way but reading between the lines of what you said, are you saying now that we have 2xLHD and 1x LSD replacing both LPA and LSH plus the 6x LCH is all we need?

    Tonnage and capabilty wise they are far far in advance on what we had but still 3 replacing 9 still leaves us thin asthey can only be in one place at a time.surley we need either small LPD or LST to round out capabilty?